Rightfully so, Kubrick's version is ass. It may be a good movie, and it may be a great horror film revered by many but The Shining, it isn't.

Not sure what's so funny about what he said. As an adaptation, Kubrick's version sucked balls. I enjoy the hell out of it as a movie in its own right, but it completely lost the spirit of the book and made drastic changes to plot and characters.

I actually agree with this part (ha, not sure if you were being sarcastic since I see someone responded with ).

As for LHotL, I found it pretty reprehensible and hollow, though slick at times. I am a fan of the original despite some of it's flaws. I have always preferred Day of the Woman/I Spit on Your Grave to the original LHotL, though neither one is something I throw in for a good time. And neither hold a candle to The Virgin Spring.

King's list is somewhat odd, but I think it suits my perception of who he is. I'm sure when I get around to my personal top ten for the year D9 and The Hurt Locker will likely be on there somewhere.

I've yet to see Fox, The Road and Disgrace which are the movies from his list I'm planning on catching soon.

The inclusion of The Reader is strange not only because (as pointed out) it was a film from last year (Oscar nom'd even), but I thought it was terrible. I thought King was sober still...

Last House On the Left would probably be one of my favorite horror flicks of the year if not for that goddamn microwave.
Also, Kubrick's The Shining is probably my favorite horror film ever made.

Who gives a shit how closely he stuck to the source material? He took King's story and made something completely his own and in my mind made something far superior.

King on Kubrick's The Shining "The real problem is that Kubrick set out to make a horror picture with no apparent understanding of the genre. Everything about it screams that from beginning to end, from plot decision to the final scene."

As a comedy, Kurbrick's The Shining "sucked balls." But it was still a brilliant movie. As a strict adaption of the book, The Shining mini-series "sucked ass."

Is that a rhetorical question? People that read and love the novel?

He may have made something superior, but he didn't make The Shining. He made the equivalent of the Lawnmower Man. Took the names and the setting and tossed the book aside and made what he wanted to make. There's nothing wrong with that, it's a beloved movie. It's just a terrible adaptation.

The ABC mini was a good adaptation. Not great, but decent. With a larger budget and without being confined to network tv ratings it could have been much better.

2012?
The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3?

Good lord how could anybody include these film in their best of 2009 list?
At least I have excuses for seeing both these movies. 2012 was on a first date, it was that or New Moon, so 2012 seemed more tolerable. And Pelham was because me and my friends were all bored and figured we'd waste some time.

Your official position seems to be, "Yeah it sucks as an adaptation but I'm going to argue with anyone who says as much." Nobody said it wasn't a great movie, though I would say it fell far short of it's potential given the source material. Have you read the book? I'd be surprised to see someone who had claim that the movie was 'far superior' to it.

i agree completely..most people think im nuts when i say I think The Shining as a film sucked
although the few that do agree are ones that read the novel beforehand

No, I wasn't looking to argue with anyone. I was only saying King's list shouldn't be taken to heart. He's not the best judge of film when he can't find a good horror film in the film Kubrick made.

That's just it, we can be more objective because we are outsiders. It's King's novel that he poured months of work into. He's even said that the novel was an allegory for his own alcohol and drug addiction at the time. It's a very personal work. To see someone take something like that and basically throw it in the trash to make something completely different was probably gut wrenching.

FWIW, he probably hasn't even seen the movie since its release to give it a chance to work on a different level or to stand on it's own.

That's understandable. It still doesn't explain why his 2nd favorite movie of the year is LHOTL. Maybe he was drinking again?

This. Absolutely. I was about to post the same thing.

And FWIW, I admire the technical aspects of The Shining, but never thought it was a great horror movie. Kubrick is hands down one of the most talented directors ever, but I've just never been that into The Shining. However, it's still a film I revisit every other year or so.

And thank god for that. The Shining is the one Stephen King book I've tried to read and gave up 4/5ths of the way through out of complete and utter boredom. His mini-series had the same effect, though I managed to watch that exercise in tedium all the way through.

Kubrick's The Shining, whatever else it is or isn't, is a masterpiece.

WORD

I've heard of people bringing their own food into the theater ... but I would definitely agree that somebody bringing in their microwave to make the popcorn "fresh" would be very distracting.

I thought that it was typical King ... moments of brilliance, moments of delusion, and the ending sucked. (And I am a King fan.)

I agree. Even though I don't agree with many of his choices, it's nice to see something different than the same 15 movies or so being recycled in every top 10 list.

Although it was a flawed film, I agree that it was one of the better recent remakes. I guess I see things differently than a couple of you that I enjoyed the second half more than the first. As a Hollywood movie, I thought it worked better in revenge territory. The first half looked too much like a commercial or something. It just didn't work for me in the beginning, but the film managed to bring me in as it went along.

And I definitely agree about the microwave.

Kubrick's THE SHINING >>>>>>>>>>> King's THE SHINING

I've only read one fiction book by King, "The Stand." It was very readable, but nothing more than a hack yarn spun by a talented writer. Which is okay. Why shouldn't talented hacks get their work out their to a reading public that wants it? Better them than untalented hacks--of which there are plenty.

But I really like King's nonfiction. I enjoyed "Danse Macabre" very much (his critical survey of horror in films, TV, popular fiction, radio, etc.). And I enjoy his EW column every month. I don't often agree with him because he has a much greater tolerance of (and appetite for) contemporary pop culture than I do. But he's intelligent and passionate about it and that makes him a good commentator. He's an enthusiastic fan, but one who can describe and elaborate on his tastes very well.

You seem to believe that all films should have the same specific subject matter to have something as broad as a genre label apply. This is wrong, and I know you don't actually think that, but are desperate to win an argument.

As for the fallacious idea that "If this is one of your favorite films of the year, your (sic) either pretty disturbed or just don't see much quality cinema" - I don't think King is disturbed or bereft of quality cinema, nor do I believe did anyone posting here say it was on of their favorites of the year.

Your decision to insult people based on their opinion is the disturbing action, jmu.

Thank you for the nightmares.